EDITORIAL: NCAA action against Miami was puzzling

Published: Sunday, October 27, 2013 at 3:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, October 26, 2013 at 12:17 a.m.

Forrest Gump, Winston Groom's fictional character, noted that, “Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get.” Apparently, NCAA infractions cases mimic life in that regard.

The penalties meted out to the University of Miami on Tuesday left a lot of people in these parts scratching their heads. Some aspects of the case closely mirrored the NCAA case against the University of Alabama involving high school football player Albert Means and booster Logan Young. The punishments weren'tt similar at all.

In Miami, the case involved a booster, Nevin Shapiro, passing out extra benefits to Miami players, and it's reasonable to believe that Miami officials should have known. In Alabama's case, Young was funneling money to Means' high school coach in hopes that he would help steer the high school star to Alabama.

In both cases, the universities cooperated with the NCAA to help uncover the truth and also self-imposed penalties. In Alabama's case, cooperation seemed to mean little, as the football program was hit with both a post-season play ban and devastating scholarship losses. Miami self-imposed a post-season ban, but the scholarship losses were light.

Some seem to believe the NCAA mitigated the penalties because of revelations during the Miami investigation that the NCAA used improper tactics to gather information. But the NCAA verifiably violated its own rules during its investigation of Alabama in the Means case.

The sympathy shown Miami might be a bit more understandable if the program had a reputation for being squeaky clean. Not only do the Hurricanes have a checkered past with the NCAA, but at times in the past its teams have been synonymous with bad behavior and poor sportsmanship on the field.

Alabama had never been on NCAA probation when it got hammered in 1995 for allowing an ineligible player, Antonio Langham, to play. The NCAA's reason for the harsh penalties was the lack of cooperation Alabama provided, not the relatively minor infraction. In its 2000 case involving Means, UA cooperated but got hammered because of the severity of the infractions.

This is not to argue for more severe penalties against Miami or to excuse Alabama for breaking the rules. Both issues have been settled. But NCAA member institutions should at least be able to expect some consistency from the organization.

The NCAA cannot continue to apply its rules and hand out penalties in an arbitrary manner. At some point, it will anger enough of the major programs — either by handing them disproportionately harsh penalties or by handing competitors disproportionately light penalties — that it won't have any friends left. There have already been rumblings among the major football conferences that it's time to start a separate governing organization.

It would be better for all involved if the NCAA would find a more equitable way t

<p>Forrest Gump, Winston Groom's fictional character, noted that, “Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get.” Apparently, NCAA infractions cases mimic life in that regard.</p><p>The penalties meted out to the University of Miami on Tuesday left a lot of people in these parts scratching their heads. Some aspects of the case closely mirrored the NCAA case against the University of Alabama involving high school football player Albert Means and booster Logan Young. The punishments weren'tt similar at all.</p><p>In Miami, the case involved a booster, Nevin Shapiro, passing out extra benefits to Miami players, and it's reasonable to believe that Miami officials should have known. In Alabama's case, Young was funneling money to Means' high school coach in hopes that he would help steer the high school star to Alabama.</p><p>In both cases, the universities cooperated with the NCAA to help uncover the truth and also self-imposed penalties. In Alabama's case, cooperation seemed to mean little, as the football program was hit with both a post-season play ban and devastating scholarship losses. Miami self-imposed a post-season ban, but the scholarship losses were light.</p><p>Some seem to believe the NCAA mitigated the penalties because of revelations during the Miami investigation that the NCAA used improper tactics to gather information. But the NCAA verifiably violated its own rules during its investigation of Alabama in the Means case.</p><p>The sympathy shown Miami might be a bit more understandable if the program had a reputation for being squeaky clean. Not only do the Hurricanes have a checkered past with the NCAA, but at times in the past its teams have been synonymous with bad behavior and poor sportsmanship on the field.</p><p>Alabama had never been on NCAA probation when it got hammered in 1995 for allowing an ineligible player, Antonio Langham, to play. The NCAA's reason for the harsh penalties was the lack of cooperation Alabama provided, not the relatively minor infraction. In its 2000 case involving Means, UA cooperated but got hammered because of the severity of the infractions.</p><p>This is not to argue for more severe penalties against Miami or to excuse Alabama for breaking the rules. Both issues have been settled. But NCAA member institutions should at least be able to expect some consistency from the organization.</p><p>The NCAA cannot continue to apply its rules and hand out penalties in an arbitrary manner. At some point, it will anger enough of the major programs — either by handing them disproportionately harsh penalties or by handing competitors disproportionately light penalties — that it won't have any friends left. There have already been rumblings among the major football conferences that it's time to start a separate governing organization.</p><p>It would be better for all involved if the NCAA would find a more equitable way t</p>